USPD vs. KPD: lessons for organizing today

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabhaengige-sozialdemokratische-partei-t95038/index.html

"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)



A while back I "bent the stick" in favour of the SPD model against the sectarianism of so-called "vanguardists." However, recent discussions in the Theory forum and in this very forum have led me to a more appropriate party model for class-conscious workers today, with no bent sticks whatsoever:


I'm at the stage where these days I'm interested, although not necessarily supportive of, on any workers party (of which Labour has never been; the history of the SPD being more complex) that succeeds in the critical task of building a mass following. This is the hurdle that much more 'pure' or 'revolutionary' parties have continually fallen at



While I strongly disagree with many of Jacob's theories as to the party (and odd admiration for Kautsky) he's perfectly correct in stressing this aspect of the party's role

[...]

I'll also throw in the entire German Revolution as a warning. The whole affair was rife with ultra-leftist militants (Fischer et al) and lack of organisation (the refusal to contest elections, the bizarre 'Revolutionary Offensive' and uncoordinated strikes of 1919 spring to mind) but really you need look no further than the failed putsch of January 1919 which effectively ended the most promising revolution in Europe

[...]I disagree with a lot of Luxemburg's theories and actions but her stance on the elections during the KPD's foundation congress of 1918 was sound.

[...]

KPD participation in the National Assembly was rejected and the new party remained dangerously isolated from the working class. It would not become an actual mass party until the merger with the USPD (which did contest the National Assembly). The ultra-leftist current was pushing too hard and too fast... which would lead to complete disaster in 1919



Given your very own words here:


Certainly it dwarfed the KPD in terms of numbers and the considerable majority of class conscious workers of Germany could be counted amongst its membership. That was its real strength and it was not until the merger with the USPD that the KPD could be considered a true mass party

I consider the very foundation of the KPD in 1918, in direct competition with the USPD (not the SPD, of course) that was founded in 1917 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabhaengige-sozialdemokratische-partei-t95038/index.html), to be ultra-leftist. The USPD was Germany's vanguard party, especially since the majority of the membership was revolutionary, and could have easily booted out the leading renegades.

Nowadays, German workers have to start from scratch... in the less-than-ideal-vanguard-party Die Linke (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-party-berlin-t100273/index2.html). :(

Speaking of Die Linke:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/left-m10.shtml


At the start of April, the Left Party-Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) issued a press statement to commemorate the founding of the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) 90 years ago.

Under the heading “An Outstanding Role Model for Left Politics Today,” the national secretary of the Left Party-PDS, Dietmar Bartsch, described the founding of the USPD in 1917 as an event “worthy of commemoration.” He continued: “The Left Party-PDS, which is in the midst of a process of party reformation with the WASG (Election Alternative group), draws from many traditions. The USPD is one of them. This party maintained the anti-militarist tradition of German social democracy. With it emerged a new mass party and the prerequisite for a left alternative to the SPD (Social Democratic Party).”

Bartsch went on: “The USPD developed under the pressure of the war and as the product of a progressive process of differentiation in the SPD. Important Marxist social democratic theoreticians such as Eduard Bernstein, Rudolf Hilferding and Karl Kautsky, who regarded themselves as the upholders of social democracy, turned to the organisation. In the following years there were uncertainties and intense disputes over the political orientation of the party and its search for a realistic political strategy, conflicts that today one would probably be termed factional fights between ‘realist politicians’ and ‘representatives of the pure line.’ The subsequent splits and new unifications only served to complicate the creation of a uniform mass party which paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics.”

The statement concluded: “The internal struggles over orientation in the following years inevitably led to a further splintering of the workers’ movement and weakened the left in its fight against aspiring fascism. The attempt by Paul Levi to constitute a left socialist mass party based on the unity of the KPD (German Communist Party) and USPD-left, in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg, failed. In its failure, as in its alternatives, the attempt provides an exemplary lesson for left policy today.”




The mere splitting away from the class-collaborationist, ultra-rightist [I]tred-iunionisty in the SPD is good enough. Of the five tendencies comrade Macnair wrote about in regards to the workers' movement (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/495/marxism.html), three tendencies belonged to the USPD: the Bernsteinian pacifists (who realized how wrong it was to work with the economists to their right), the collapsing center, and the "Hegelian Marxist" left.

While Rosa Luxemburg lamented about the lack of an organisational infrastructure in the ultra-left KPD (I would think newspapers would be part of this deficit), the USPD took quite a number of the SPD's newspapers, and maybe even more "innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination'" (Lars Lih's description for sports clubs, social groups, cultural societies, etc.).

Over time, the "profoundly revolutionary wing" of the USPD became the majority, and the "ultra-revisionist wing" became the minority. Why did this majority do the exact reverse of the RSDLP's liquidationism episode and liquidate itself instead of fighting the other side?



Trivia: The even more ultra-leftist KAPD split from the ultra-left KPD before the liquidationist influx of USPD members into the latter. :lol:

[ComradeOm]

I suppose that this is as good a time as any to deal with the USPD. Its really not surprising that Die Linke would praise this - both are after all vacillating and spineless collections of centrist tendencies with a stake in ensuring the survival of the parliamentary system. Whatever about the divisions and ineffectiveness of the KPD, it remains a model workers' party when compared to the mongrel USPD

Ironically enough the leaders of the USPD included many - such as Kautsky, Bernstein, Eisner, and (yes) Luxemburg - of those who had staunchly resisted splitting the old party. Indeed it was the SPD Executive that took the initiative in staging the first mass expulsions from the party in 1917 and forcing the anti-war current out of the party. Even after this point Kautsky et al continued to oppose the creation of a new party and the name ultimately chosen - Independent Social Democratic Party - was deliberately intended to show that this was a continuation of, not a break with, old traditions. The final product, as founded at the Gotha Congress of April 1917, validated Marx's line about history and farces - the Erfurt Programme of 1891 was solemnly adopted by the 'new' party and the overwhelming sentiment amongst delegates was for a return to the pre-war policies, positions, and programmes of social-democracy

The decision of the Spartacists to join the USPD was sharply criticised, and rightly so, by many on the German left. Unfortunately Luxemburg, Liebknecht, et al, were all products of the old party and were convinced that the USPD could be moved to the left. The alternative, "the immediate regrouping of all left elements into a workers' party" (to quote Johann Knief of the ISD), was ignored. Instead the Spartacists became just another faction in a cobbled together party obsessed with the past. Petty bickering with the other currents of the USPD - most notably Haase and Dittmann on the Right, whose positions differed little from the SPD left - was hardly productive

In short the USPD had no clear policies to deal with a revolutionary scenario, no coherent structure, and no future. There is no question that the choice of the Spartacists to join was incorrect (the expected gains did not materialise) and rather than further the revolutionary agenda of the German proletariat, the USPD leadership actually joined the SPD in government for a period. Its commitment to the workers councils was never more than lukewarm and at the Congress of Councils in Dec 1918 over half the USPD delegates followed Haase in backing the call for an early Constituent Assembly... effectively dooming council rule and endorsing parliamentary structures

That the USPD did enjoy decided organisational and financial advantages over its rivals on the left can be almost entirely ascribed to its gains from the divorce with the SPD. From this they inherited the name, several papers, hundreds of full time officers, and over a hundred thousand members. The ultimate split may have been staged by the SPD Executive but there had been significant growing grassroots opposition to the war and this found an outlet in the, rather un-revolutionary, USPD. At this point in time the Spartacists were still a wing of the party and the various other parties that would form the KPD were scattered and localised

Ultimately the earlier split would be repeated as the contradiction between a reformist leadership and increasingly radicalised membership forced a divergence. In this case it was whether to join the Third International that presented the leadership with a clear choice between communism and social-democracy. The executive chose the latter (the SPD) while the bulk of the membership the other (KPD). And that demise just about sums up the sad existence of the USPD

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed it was the SPD Executive that took the initiative in staging the first mass expulsions from the party in 1917 and forcing the anti-war current out of the party.

As I said before, the split between class-strugglists and those to their right ("social-democrats" with their identity politics, Green politics, and collective bargainism) and "left" (bomb-throwing "revolutionists") cannot be fixed, and as you said before in the SPD thread, participatory-democratic "reformists" amongst the class-strugglists are a minute minority in the developed world.


Even after this point Kautsky et al continued to oppose the creation of a new party and the name ultimately chosen - Independent Social Democratic Party - was deliberately intended to show that this was a continuation of, not a break with, old traditions. The final product, as founded at the Gotha Congress of April 1917, validated Marx's line about history and farces - the Erfurt Programme of 1891 was solemnly adopted by the 'new' party and the overwhelming sentiment amongst delegates was for a return to the pre-war policies, positions, and programmes of social-democracy

I don't see too much of a mistake there. I find it interesting that the USPD met first at Gotha (site of the Gotha Programme). I will admit that, considering the senile renegade's later works on The Labour Revolution and the Heidelberg Programme, the adopted minimum programme of the USPD should have called outright for the democratic republic (like the CPGB of today): suppression of the state debt (gee, the war debt), average workers' wage, and so on. The left wing of the USPD clearly did not learn from the critique written by Engels. :(


That the USPD did enjoy decided organisational and financial advantages over its rivals on the left can be almost entirely ascribed to its gains from the divorce with the SPD. From this they inherited the name, several papers, hundreds of full time officers, and over a hundred thousand members. The ultimate split may have been staged by the SPD Executive but there had been significant growing grassroots opposition to the war and this found an outlet in the, rather un-revolutionary, USPD. At this point in time the Spartacists were still a wing of the party and the various other parties that would form the KPD were scattered and localised

Ultimately the earlier split would be repeated as the contradiction between a reformist leadership and increasingly radicalised membership forced a divergence. In this case it was whether to join the Third International that presented the leadership with a clear choice between communism and social-democracy. The executive chose the latter (the SPD) while the bulk of the membership the other (KPD). And that demise just about sums up the sad existence of the USPD

You yourself have just admitted what I said above; even the left wing of the USPD was more numerous and organised than the KPD and especially the KAPD. Why the formation of the latter two in the first place?

[ComradeOm]

As I said before, the split between class-strugglists and those to their right ("social-democrats" with their identity politics, Green politics, and collective bargainism) and "left" (bomb-throwing "revolutionists") cannot be fixed, and as you said before in the SPD thread, participatory-democratic "reformists" amongst the class-strugglists are a minute minority in the developed worldThere are two possible scenarios here:

1) The reformist democratic-socialist tendency is numerically insignificant. In which case it has to be asked where are the merits in accommodating them in a 'big tent' party structure? Once inside the party they would serve solely as a distraction and, as proven by both the USPD and KPD, petty infighting is not desirable

2) The reformist democratic-socialist tendency constitute a significant minority of the working class movement. (In the case of the USPD they also monopolised the party's executive). If this is the case then they represent a false avenue for the revolutionary movement and should be combated as vigorously as the more blatant social-democrats. This obviously precludes any co-existence with genuine revolutionary movements in a single party


You yourself have just admitted what I said above; even the left wing of the USPD was more numerous and organised than the KPD and especially the KAPD. Why the formation of the latter two in the first place?Because the left wing of the USPD was completely hobbled by the right and centre of the party. Ultimately the USPD was not a revolutionary party and it was not a communist party. It was a vain attempt to recreate the pre-war SPD in the hugely changed environment of revolutionary Germany. When it was finally forced to commit to a revolutionary course of action, ie joining the ComIntern, the party simply disintegrated into its component factions. I see nothing admirable in this

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are two possible scenarios here:

1) The reformist democratic-socialist tendency is numerically insignificant. In which case it has to be asked where are the merits in accommodating them in a 'big tent' party structure? Once inside the party they would serve solely as a distraction and, as proven by both the USPD and KPD, petty infighting is not desirable

2) The reformist democratic-socialist tendency constitute a significant minority of the working class movement. (In the case of the USPD they also monopolised the party's executive). If this is the case then they represent a false avenue for the revolutionary movement and should be combated as vigorously as the more blatant social-democrats. This obviously precludes any co-existence with genuine revolutionary movements in a single party

1) Isn't "petty infighting" much better than "party line"-ism and the sectarian externalization of said infighting, though? The main point of the SPD's democratic centralism, which was the same as that of the Bolsheviks until Zinoviev became more prominent, is that public criticism is allowed, even in the case of "party lines," but not areas of action per se.

2) In the "democratic socialism" Learning thread, I posted an agreement with you about the equivalence to parliamentary socialism. However, I specifically mentioned above participatory-democratic "reformists," like those of Michael Albert, Robin Hahnel, and Stephen Shalom - but only those who recognize the need for class struggle (I have my doubts about the three of them).



These guys too recognize that:

"This socially revolutionary transformation, along with socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation, cannot be brought about by any of the following: private philanthropy by the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie; scientific management and social engineering by the coordinators; [I]social-statist legislation and administration within the framework of the bourgeois-capitalist state"

And:

"Once more, there can be no parliamentary, pseudo-representative, liberal, or other non-class-strugglist roads to the aforementioned emancipation of the working class."

And:

"The only road to the aforementioned emancipation of the working class by that class itself is necessarily class-strugglist – rife with necessarily sharpened class antagonisms – but also necessarily participatory-democratic."